MUDA row: Karnataka HC extends stay on trial court proceedings against CM till Sep 12

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday adjourned the hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of Governor Thaawarchand’s sanction for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case to September 12.

The court also extended its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people’s representatives that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the next date of hearing.

“Heard the learn’d council Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for fourth respondent (Snehamayi Krishna).The respondents have all completed their submissions. The learned Advocate General has also completed his submissions. For the reply submission of senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and senior counsel Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, list this matter on September 12 at 12 pm,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said.

The Judge said: “On September 12, we should be completing this.”

The Governor on August 16 accorded sanction under the Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions of Pradeep Kumar SP, TJ Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.

On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.

In the petition, the CM submitted that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the state government, said this is a case where private persons have sought for prosecution approval under section 17A of Pretension of Corruption Act, adding, the condition precedent for 17A approval is preliminary inquiry be done by an investigating officer.

Noting that this is a corruption case where there is abnormal delay and, so, preliminary inquiry is mandatory, he pointed out that “this is the case of more than 20 years (old), as 1998 is the date of de-notification of the land, so there is abnormal delay.”